Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

georgesaines.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 302 posts

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#141

Post by whaaaaat »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #104
whaaaaat wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practice is important. And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important. But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare". I unde…

There is no party that will make “every waking moment a nightmare" for the LGBTQIAP+. That’s the same thing we heard in 2016, and nothing came of it then. And in fact between 2020 and 2024 there is definitely an argument that can be made that even under the “preferred” party things got worse. Ironically, that exact rhetoric has led to multiple terror attacks on innocent people.

To be clear, I believe both parties are anti-trans. Malcom X was spot on with the Fox and the Wolf -- they both want to eat the lamb, the wolf is just a lot more honest about it.

I regularly argue that Biden has been specifically and materially awful to the trans community. Do not mistake me saying that Republicans want to do worse as somehow saying the Dems are good.

But anti-trans legislation, particularly at the state level, is rising dramatically. (With almost 700 bills introduced this year, compared to merely 10-20 10 years ago.)

The follow states passed anti-trans bills last year: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Wyoming

I think, looking at that list, it's pretty clearly predominantly right-leaning states who are actually enacting legislation to make access to education, healthcare, mental health support, services, name changes, etc. more difficult. Like, I don't think that's even subjective. 87 bills passed in those states, and those states are the only ones who passed anti-trans bills.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#142

Post by s1artibartfast »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #111
zero-sharp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation and everything to do with policy. This is absolutely not how a lot of people operate.

I'm sensing some sort of neurotypical/neurodiverse divide here. I don't think it's unreasonable to live a morally comprehensive life. For example, I probably couldn't be friends with a white-supremacist even if they were kind, gentle, supportive, and caring. Some folks are able to look past those things and more power to them. I, however, couldn't sleep at night.

This is what I find as strange. Why couldn't you sleep at night?

In my mind, the moral, healthy, productive, and pro-social thing would be to continue friendship.

I dont think shunning people builds bridges or helps anyone.

Then again, my generation grew up with stories like black activists who befriended KKK members and slowly converted them with compassion and challenging their preconceived notions.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#143

Post by [deleted] »

lolinder wrote: post #40
asynchronous wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s literally no way the nation of India is more diverse than the United States- we have the biggest spread of racial, and religious diversity on the planet, by far.

With all due respect, please do some research on India before asserting something like this. We're taking about a country with ~4x the population of the US where no single language has the majority of native speakers (the closest is Hindi at 26% [0]). 12 different languages are spoken natively by >1% of the population. India has diversity that someone born in the US can't even begin to comprehend. I think it's hard f…

[deleted]

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#144

Post by Swizec »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #137
Swizec wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if one the people in that discussion is trans, and the other person doesn't believe that trans people are real ... Why tho? Just because we might disagree on the details of gender doesn't mean we can't discuss NIMBYism. I don't see what gender has to do with housing. It's possible I'm the weirdo here because the American obsession with identity never quite clicked for me. We once did a "What are your identities…

> Why tho? Just because we might disagree on the details of gender doesn't mean we can't discuss NIMBYism. I don't see what gender has to do with housing. Imagine you have cancer, and thankfully there’s a medication that you can take that keeps your cancer in remission. You’ve been taking it for 15 years, and you’ve been living a pretty good life. Lately though, a bunch of people have been claiming cancer doesn’t exi…

> Now, your neighbor just wants to talk to you about the rules for how far back new houses should be set from the curb, but every other sentence is about how sick those people are who think they have cancer, and how great party is with all of the policies that would basically ensure you die.

See that's what I mean. There is (from what I remember) less of this in Europe because the kill-cancer-kids party is different than the curb-setbacks-party. You can even vote for saving kids and curb setbacks!

So basically the cancer thing doesn't come up while you're discussing curb setbacks. Because they're separate issues whose venn diagrams don't overlap. You could even go decades without ever realizing your neighbor doesn't believe in cancer.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#145

Post by s1artibartfast »

deathanatos wrote: post #134
s1artibartfast wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing- Imagine you think killing fetuses is akin to murder. What response would you give to your own point? There is a huge list of counteragents someone could make if they start from that basis, and your counterpoint does nothing to impact them. Everyone is talking past each other with arguments which make sense to them, but are largely off target for the other person.

… really? Let's say, for sake of argument, that a fetus is a life, equal in rights to that of a human. What counterpoint is there to support the argument that 2 dead is better than 1 dead?

If you were faced with the choice of strangling a 2 year old or someone would kill you both, what would you choose?

There are lots of ethical frameworks where it is better to both die than murder the child.

That said, the situation posed by the OP was the the mother may die (e.g. there are risks).

What percent shared risk of death do you think would justify strangling a 2 year old child?

personally, Im pretty middle of the road on abortion and can understand where each side is coming from.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#146

Post by jcranmer »

deathanatos wrote: post #127
orionsbelt wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d be curious (although you don’t have to answer and we can leave it rhetorical if you prefer) - how much is your health really directly at risk here? Are you a woman in a red state planning to have children soon? Or are you in a blue state, and perhaps have already had children? Even if you were in a red state - would you have the means, and would, travel to a blue state if you had an issue? And if not, really, wha…

Some of us care about harms to our fellow citizens, too? Just because a law might not impact me personally [1] doesn't stop me from going "no, this law is a bad law because it tramples on people's civil liberties." The Golden Rule. > it’s intellectually dishonest to act like a conservative doesn’t care about pregnant woman No, it isn't. Several states have passed total abortion bans that have included, or end up effe…

> They do impact me personally, but I do not think that is a requirement for people to engage in debate.

To emphasize this point:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[A famous quote by a German after the Holocaust, lamenting his inaction during the Nazi regime.]

I think it is incredibly crass and craven to assert that one needs to be personally affected by an issue to speak out on it.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#147

Post by zero-sharp »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #111
zero-sharp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation and everything to do with policy. This is absolutely not how a lot of people operate.

I'm sensing some sort of neurotypical/neurodiverse divide here. I don't think it's unreasonable to live a morally comprehensive life. For example, I probably couldn't be friends with a white-supremacist even if they were kind, gentle, supportive, and caring. Some folks are able to look past those things and more power to them. I, however, couldn't sleep at night.

There's definitely some things that warrant distancing. But I try to appreciate the good, even if there is bad. Moral purity is a luxury and self-righteousness can be ugly (sorry).

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#148

Post by jaarse »

Swizec wrote: post #19
thephyber wrote: post #2

If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to…

> rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system This is key, in my observation as an immigrant from Europe who's lived here ~10 years. Europe for the most part has multi-party democracies meaning that for every pet cause you might have there is a party that focuses on your cause. Larger causes get parties that might even get elected into parliament. Those larger parties still have…

Very well put. I think it’s this tribalism, us vs them mentality that is the issue

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#149

Post by aprilthird2021 »

sunshowers wrote: post #43

Speaking as an Indian, what's really going on is that everyone in India has lost hope in their political decisions actually impacting their lives in ways that they wish. So politics is a pretty low-stakes discussion in India, like sports teams. In America we haven't quite lost hope yet. edit: to be clear, politics does impact lives in India, but it does so in ways that are quite disconnected from individuals' politic…

I don't feel as if politics is a low stakes discussion in India, especially the religious end of political discussion. There are so many incidents of full blown riots and violence and killings over what people say about this and that religion or how you portray or don't portray this and that figure.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#150

Post by jaarse »

I’ve long maintained that what the USA really needs is a good opponent again.

Everyone wants to be on a winning team, and with the lack of a good opponent it’s turned into Republicans vs Democrats with no common ground.

At least up until the 1990s there was always a common opponent (the English, the Spanish, the Prussians/Germans, the Soviets). So while Americans had different views, they could at least focus on defeating the enemy together.

Now there is no more enemy, and they turn on each other. I guess old habit are hard to break.

Post reply on HN